Reconsideration

OK, I've had a long day, I'm coming down with a cold, and I'm tired,
but I've got one more post before I go to bed, and the day is over.

I've been really depressed for the last week as a result of the
failure of the SpaceX launch attempt. It was a major blow and
disappointment not just to SpaceX, but to the whole notion of private
space. I've gone through a lot of soul searching, and am starting to
question everything I thought I believed about the best way to open up
the new frontier.

I've come to realize that we do in fact have launch systems that work,
most of the time, even if they're expensive. We have a space station,
if we could just muster up the gumption to finish it, and start to
turn it to the useful ends for which it was intended. Shuttle is
risky, but any new frontier is risky. We need to work hard to continue
to minimize the risk of losing our priceless astronauts, even if we
don't fly it for another three years. We have a president with a
vision, a Congress willing to support it to a degree, and a new NASA
administrator (a genuine rocket scientist--something we've never
before had as a NASA administrator, and isn't it about time?) with
great ideas about how to get us back to the moon quickly (or as
quickly as the stingy folks on the Hill are willing to fund).

Maybe it's just because I'm getting old, or don't feel well, but I
know now that relying on guys in garages, operating on shoestrings, is
never going to get us into space. The skeptics are right--Rutan's done
nothing except replicate what NASA did over forty years ago.

Furthermore, I realize now that it's not important that I get into
space myself--what's important is that the opportunity is there for my
children. Or my grandchildren. Or my great-grand children. It may take
a long time, because we know that space is hard.

What's important is that we have to keep striving, keep supporting
these vital efforts, never let our interest flag or wane, in getting
our people back to the moon, and on to Mars, no matter how long it
takes, no matter how much it costs. Yes, it costs a lot, but we are a
great country, and a rich one. There are so many other things that the
government wastes money on, it's very frustrating that we can't get
the support we need to ensure that this NASA human spaceflight
program, critical not just to our nation's future, but to that of
humanity, can't move faster. I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.

Ad Astra, and good night.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.



First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.
Who knows? SpaceX's next launch attempt might work, although their whole
Falcon program up to the moment has a distinctly amateurish feel to it
that I don't think bodes any too well for its ultimate success.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.

First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:36:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.

First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly so...

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

About the only worse way he could have overplayed his hand was to
concede that Eric Chomko or Brad Guth had been right all along...

Jim Davis

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:10:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, Jim
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

Well, I did save that for the end. I didn't think it fair not to
offer *some* clues...

About the only worse way he could have overplayed his hand was to
concede that Eric Chomko or Brad Guth had been right all along...

?!

You mean they haven't been?

Jim Davis wrote in
. 160.156:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

That long, huh? I was onto him by the third paragraph, where he was writing
nice things about the shuttle. :-) I bought the disappointment with SpaceX
and his turn of heart on ISS, if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed. I think I started skimming once I got to the part about Griffin
being a "real rocket scientist" - re-reading the original post now, I'm
just now spotting some of the howlers below that point that I missed the
first time around.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:36:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
: R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:

: Pat Flannery wrote in
: :
:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: I now realize that Mark Whittington is
: right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
: us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
: must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
: it takes.
:
: First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
: around 2025 if at all.
: Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
: to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
: from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
: ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
: Moon.
:
: Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
: post.

: Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly so...

The irony of course is that your little joke is the most coherent post
you've ever made. Sort of reminded me of an addict admitting to their
addiction. And now here you are back using again...

Eric

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.

He had me going up until about paragraph 3 or so (I think "We have a
space station, if we could just muster up the gumption to finish it"
was about when I stopped asking myself, "gee, what has Rand gotten
disillusioned about and what new direction does he see?").

Jim Kingdon wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.



He had me going up until about paragraph 3 or so (I think "We have a
space station, if we could just muster up the gumption to finish it"
was about when I stopped asking myself, "gee, what has Rand gotten
disillusioned about and what new direction does he see?").


I was actually feeling sorry for him, but twas all a sham.
Live and learn.

Pat